McCain's Delusional Tax Plan
McCain's top policy advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin claims that such a write-off has no long-term cost. In fact, when Holtz-Eakin headed the Congressional Budget Office, it concluded that a similar, smaller proposal cost $440 billion over a decade. Reagan tax official Ron Pearlman labeled Holtz-Eakin's claim "so intellectually dishonest it's outrageous."
In addition to covering up the true cost of its corporate tax cuts, the McCain plan has another serious flaw: Companies can use new investments to shelter profits from other parts of their business from tax. Other advocates of immediate investment write-offs, such as George Bush's tax reform panel, considered it "essential" to also eliminate the deduction for business interest. But revisiting the interest deduction raises a host of thorny problems for Wall Street, and McCain has simply ignored this hole in his plan.
For individuals, McCain proposes repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax, the parallel tax system that was intended to prevent tax sheltering but now threatens millions of middle-class families with higher taxes and more complexity. Millions of taxpayers are required to calculate their taxes under two systems -- the regular tax code and the AMT -- and pay the higher sum. Because the AMT is not indexed for inflation, it threatens more middle-class families every year.
Congress has repeatedly passed temporary solutions that exempt most of the middle class from the AMT, but McCain would go further and repeal the AMT entirely. This approach would cost $60 billion more a year than the temporary patches do, and 57 percent of that money would flow to the top 1 percent of households. McCain could have solved both the cost and fairness problems by replacing the AMT with a modest surtax on the households benefiting from its repeal, but he did not. Once again, he chose all dessert and no vegetables.
McCain's final tax proposal is doubling the tax exclusion for dependents, costing $65 billion and helping most families with children. In essence, each family would be able to deduct an additional $3,500 for each child. This means that a millionaire, who is in the 35 percent tax bracket, would get $1,225 per child, while a steelworker, who is in the 15 percent tax bracket, would get $525. Families in poverty would get nothing because they pay no income taxes, even though they pay thousands in payroll and sales taxes.
Here, too, McCain had alternatives. Liberals have suggested consolidating tax benefits for children into a simpler, unified credit that is especially beneficial to working-class families who do not receive the earned income tax credit. Similarly, "Sam's Club conservatives" Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam have suggested baby bonuses to help new families with children.
If McCain had taken these alternatives, his tax plan would still be costly but it would have had more for families and less in corporate giveaways. He could have railed with equal passion for tax cuts and for tax reform; for toughness on corporate special interests and fairness and growth for ordinary businesses and families.
To pay for his $300 billion a year in tax cuts, McCain has made only two significant proposals. He would freeze discretionary spending besides that on defense and veterans, saving about $15 billion but hurting good programs and bad, and he would eliminate earmarks, saving as much as $18 billion a year.
McCain initially claimed that eliminating earmarks would save $100 billion, but abandoned that claim after Scott Lilly pointed out that his figure included the entire Israel aid budget as well as military housing. Even the $18 billion figure is inflated since McCain now admits that some of these earmarks have value, like the ferry in the depressed Delta community he visited last week.
To pay for the rest of his tax cuts -- some $270 billion, nearly 90 percent of the total -- McCain turns to obfuscation. He promises to review a White House list of wasteful spending and a Treasury Department list of corporate tax loopholes and create a blue-ribbon commission that will, presumably, draw up another list that will need further review. But so far he has not endorsed actually cutting any programs on these lists.
Depending on your perspective, McCain's agenda is either empty or terrifying. It is empty in the sense that McCain offers an array of budget-cutting gimmicks that dwarf Reagan's magic asterisk. But McCain's tax cuts are terrifying because, as Jared Bernstein has argued in these pages, they would eventually trigger a budgetary crisis that transforms deep spending cuts from unthinkable to inevitable.
It's hard to know if McCain is intentionally pursuing a dramatic downsizing in the government role, but it's clear to his supporters. Conservative activist Grover Norquist -- who once feuded with McCain but now praises his tax agenda -- has been clear about his desire to shrink government "down to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub." Marxists used to say "the worse the better," aiming to "heighten the contradictions of capitalism." This is the Norquist approach to our budget these days, and the implicit logic in McCain's as well.
McCain's strength as a candidate is rooted in his claim that he is a man who talks honestly and stands up to special interests. But now, on the central issue of this election, he has an agenda that does neither. With corporate giveaways and phony freezes and scrubs, McCain's tax agenda undermines his core political appeal.
Robert Gordon is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
James Kvaal is a Domestic Policy Advisor at the Center for American Progress. He works with the Action Fund's Hyde Park Project, which seeks to drive the ideological debate on the key policy issues facing our country.
© 2008 The American Prospect
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
17 Comments so far
Show AllRSJ May 4th, 2008 6:23 pm
"While Obama unfortunately does have Zbignew Brezinski giving him advice, he also has fairly liberal advisers from progressive think tanks and no lobbyists or former lobbyists among his senior staff and advisors."
RSJ,
Brezinski is a tough nut to crack; and I have no doubt that Obama is well aware of it. At the same time, Brezinski is highly intelligent with a great deal of foreign policy experience under his belt. He served as an advisor to Jimmy Carter who turned out to be one of the most humane and farsighted presidents this country has ever had.
Carter, like anyone else with a working brain, knows that there will NEVER be peace in the Middle East until the Israel/Palestine issue is resolved.
The fact that Obama has no "lobbyists" among his senior staff advisors is one of the reasons why he is getting my vote. It's a good indicator that Obama is thinking beyond the status quo of this pathetic country.
Well, Gail, most of Hillary's senior staff and advisors are corporate PR men like Mark Penn, or lobbyists or former lobbyists such as Howard Wolfson, Harold Ickes and Maggie Williams.
While Obama unfortunately does have Zbignew Brezinski giving him advice, he also has fairly liberal advisers from progressive think tanks and no lobbyists or former lobbyists among his senior staff and advisors.
Gail,
I agree. People should look at who is on a candidate's election team. They may not be the same people that they would bring to office, but they might be a good indicator of their preferences.
"The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them." - Einstein
Beware of the "policy advisors" presidential candidates have chosen!
LOL, Canuckchuck. Well, he sure didn't mean the 'Wealth of Nations' by Adam Smith. Maybe it was Arizona Beer Distributors Monthly or 'Baby Takes a Bath' by Grover Norquist, as told to Jack Abramoff. Or perhaps 'Christianity for Fun and Profit' by Ralph Reed, as told to David Vitter.
maybe Grampa McLame meant this book?
Stand Up Regan: The Funny Side Of Ronald Regan by Ronald Regan
Just index AMT. This whole idea of it is not working as well now, so let's get rid of it all is stupid and foolish. It probably should have been indexed from the start, but since it was not, index it now. Keep the things that work and fix the things that don't. That is just common sense, unless you have another agenda entirely. If you went back in the Congressional record you would probably find that the Republicans did not want it indexed so they would have something to complain about later and then they could repeal the whole thing.
Yes. The article is missing several paragraphs. They are:
America's tax code needs a serious overhaul. The last clean-up was in 1986, when Ronald Reagan turned away from his tax-slashing past to partner with a Democratic Congress and close loopholes, change rates, and broaden the tax base. Over the intervening decades, lobbyists have left their Gucci footprints all over the code, and our system is a bigger mess than ever -- one that should give both Democrats and Republicans pause.
For instance, America taxes corporations at the second-highest rate in the industrialized world but collects the fourth-lowest amount of corporate tax revenue. Why? Loopholes, special deductions, tax credits, subsidies, and shelters. Politically influential industries get special deals, distorting investment decisions and forcing overall tax rates higher than they need to be.
John McCain once seemed eager to pick up the reform mantle. A tough-talking conservative who wraps himself in the Gipper's legacy, inveighs against earmarks, calls himself a deficit hawk, and fought George Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, McCain seemed to be one of the few politicians in America actually eager to restore some sense to the tax system. Then he decided to run for president.
Over the course of his campaign, McCain has consistently chosen granting tax breaks for industry and wealthy donors over tackling the problem of pet tax benefits. He proposes cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, costing $100 billion a year, but fails to eliminate a single corporate tax break. A 25 percent rate would be below the average rate of other industrialized countries and the lowest among G-7 countries by a significant margin.
But McCain does not stop there. He would let companies immediately write off all investment in equipment and technology. Companies would get an immediate up-front deduction for their investments, rather than being forced to deduct their costs over time. The change is very valuable for companies because a $100 deduction today is worth a lot more than $10 a year for ten years. For the same reason, it is very expensive for the Treasury -- to the tune of about $75 billion a year.
Is this article missing it's first paragraph? It seems to come in on the second and third parts of the "plan" after skipping over the corporate tax part that it refers back to.
Or maybe I had a speedreading accident.
Recycle1 [May 3rd, 2008 1:01 pm] wrote:
"McCain knows nothing about how to run an economy. He was asked about his experience with economic issues and said that he didn't know much about that, but he'd read Reagan's book."
Slight correction, Recycle1, Mccain said that, but he was referring to Greenspan's book, which may be a difference without a distinction, I'll admit, since they both push the same failed economic policies that caused the current US economic collapse.
So far, I haven't heard McCain propose anything that wasn't wacky and either impossible or implausible -- first of all, he can't get rid of earmarks, that would take an act of Congress; he can only veto a bill containing earmarks, which would bring the government to a standstill. Next, his ditzy health care plan, from a man who was treated for cancer, giving a $5,000 credit to taxpayers to help pay for health insurance -- a laughable drop in the bucket -- would be subject to federal taxes, so actually much less than that goes into the patient's pocket. All of his economic plans, along with his delusion of occupying Iraq with an exhausted and overdeployed military force until we win a 'victory' there, would only make a disastrous situation worse. It sometimes seems that the 2008 version of McCain has stooped over in so many different directions to secure the GOP nomination that he doesn't listen to what he says anymore. The only thing that mitigates against that notion is his obvious 'tell' -- watch McCain when he's babbling some bit of neocon tripe even he can't believe: he blinks rapidly like he's sending a message in code.
Then there's the fact that, while he occasionally blurts out the truth -- such as that Iraq is a war for oil -- his media pals assiduously help cover his mistakes when he later 'explains' what he meant; if one of the Democrats said this, they'd be hounded for weeks by the media for their far left fringe 'misstatement' -- 'Oh, horrors, blood for oil? Never!' -- and then accused of flip-flopping if they tried to correct it.
Still, even with kid gloves from the Big Media, I think McCain is going to lose in November -- things are just that bad, and worsening, out in the nation the Washington GOP knows nothing about.
How bout we just say 'McSame's Delusional' and leave it at that.
Reading Regan's book would sure make him an expert on the economy. LOL The only times I was ever unemployed was during the Nixon and Regan terms. Yeah, lets bring those ideas back, they worked so well the first time. McCain's ideas are those of an old man, outdated and mostly bad. Hell, I'm sixty-eight and sometimes it takes me two days to remember someones name I've known for 50 years. Let's retire the "old Farts" and bring in some younger folks with new ideas. McCain should be back in Arizona playing with his wife's money.
RONALD WHITE.....if obama said that (he did not know much about the economy,but he read clinton's book) you'd sream bloody murder......
Because the AMT is not indexed for inflation, it threatens more middle-class families every year.
The analyses in articles such as this are a waste really. The offical inflation measure is not even real. The analyses are over policy prescriptions that manipulate the level of the people's enslavement to elites by some small percent, not even close to the 100% emancipation that we require.
We have our own solution. We have our sights aimed directly at the heart of classist aggression.
When you hear somebody say they are going to fix the budget by outlawing Congressional earmarks, you have met a liar.
Most of the "earmark" projects WILL BE enacted by another mechanism if they remove that one----because most of them are for things people want and need, and the rest are for things heavily lobbied by corporations, states, cities, or foreign governments.
As for McCain's "tax" plans, the one you'd better worry about is his plan to put every citizen in the country in a private selectively-underwritten health insurance policy, instead of group plans. If you've ever had or expect to have a pre-existing condition yourself (or in your family) you are looking at the road to personal bankruptcy. Wake up and defeat McCain----whatever it takes.
"said that he didn't know much about that, but he'd read Reagan's book."
Give him credit for honesty and elect him on that . Americans deserve him and will elect him .
McCain knows nothing about how to run an economy. He was asked about his experience with economic issues and said that he didn't know much about that, but he'd read Reagan's book.